U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Railroad Administration

Kelso-Martin’s Bluff Rail Improvement Projects

Task 5 and Task 6

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI) ADDENDUM

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) 

on April 10, 2015, for the Kelso-Martin’s Bluff Rail Improvement Projects Task 5 and 6. Since 

then, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) (the project sponsor and 

recipient of a grant awarded under FRA’s High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program) has 

proposed the following project changes:

Task 5: 

 Addition of rock blasting as a construction method;

 Design changes for the culvert improvements on Unnamed Tributary 3 (UT3) at 

milepost (MP) 108.19; and

 Addition of the Otter Creek Island Restoration Project as a new project element, 

which is necessary as an environmental offset to improve fish passage.

Task 6:

 Change in the location of the preservation property necessary to replace the 

habitat functions lost through the placement of fill in Owl Creek.

FRA completed a NEPA re-examination to determine whether the project changes would change 

the impacts disclosed in the Environmental Assessment (EA) and FONSI. Specifically, the reexamination analyzed the potential impacts to: transportation; land use and economics;

acquisitions/displacements/relocations; socioeconomics and communities; environmental justice; 

visual resources and aesthetics; air quality; noise and vibration; ecosystems (including protected 

species); water resources; energy and natural resources; geology and soils; hazardous materials 

and waste; public services; utilities; historic properties and cultural resources; tribal lands or 

interests; and parklands and recreation. The detailed resource-by-resource analysis is 

documented in the two attached NEPA re-examination worksheets. FRA has evaluated these 

changes and determined that the April 2015 FONSI is still valid and the proposed changes will 

not result in any significant environmental impacts.
KMB Tasks 5&6 FONSI Addendum_Page 2

This FONSI Addendum describes relevant elements of the Project as approved in the 

EA/FONSI, the proposed Project change as analyzed in the NEPA re-examination, and a 

summary of the findings of the NEPA re-examination. This FONSI Addendum, with relevant 

attachments, will be available on the FRA and WSDOT project websites1, along with the EA and 

original FONSI. 

Task 5: Proposed Project Changes

Unnamed Tributary 3 (UT3)

The Task 5 Project evaluated in the EA/FONSI and in the Biological Opinion (BiOp) issued by 

the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act

(Section 7) (December 18, 2014) included a new third track at MP 108.19. The addition of this 

track required the extension of the existing 36-inch culvert at UT3. In the EA, WSDOT proposed 

to replace the culvert at UT3 to improve fish passage. 

Specifically, WSDOT proposed to replace the UT3 culvert with up to two, 60-inch culverts that 

would pass beneath the track bed within the railroad right-of-way. West of the railroad right-ofway, WSDOT proposed a three-sided approximately 5-foot-high by 15-foot-wide bottomless box 

culvert beneath Hendrickson Drive and the parking lot within Louis Rasmussen Day Use Park

(Park). There would be an outfall at the beach, where the box culvert would transition to a 70-

foot long by 20-foot wide open, natural stream channel flowing across the beach use area of the 

Park. At the culvert outfall, a gate would be installed to prevent pedestrian access into the 

culvert.

Since FRA’s issuance of the FONSI in April 2015, WSDOT, Washington Department of Fish 

and Wildlife (WDFW), and the Cowlitz Indian Tribe recommended that the same improvements 

to fish passage proposed at UT3 could be achieved at another location, at a lower overall project 

cost.2The work now proposed at the UT3 culvert is limited to extending the existing culvert an 

additional 8 feet on the east end to accommodate the additional third mainline track construction.

The Otter Creek Island Restoration Project (Restoration Project), described below, will fulfill the 

necessary fish enhancement offsets in place of the improvements at UT3.

The change to the UT3 culvert extension will result in impacts similar to those already described 

in the EA/FONSI including impacts to: transportation, land use and economics, visual resources 

and aesthetics, ecosystems, water resources, geology and soils, historic/cultural/archeological 

 

1

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/rail/kelsolongviewjct/

https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0791

2

The Cowlitz Indian Tribe’s role in the providing input on the proposed environmental offset is derived from the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (USACE) fulfilling its Federal tribal trust obligations. USACE provides the Cowlitz with

more involvement in projects that may affect the Tribe’s usual and accustomed fishing grounds, such as along the 

Columbia River where the Task 5 Project is located.
KMB Tasks 5&6 FONSI Addendum_Page 3

resources, and construction. These impacts are summarized below and will not result in 

significant impacts consistent with the EA/FONSI:

 Transportation - Closing of the parking lot and re-routing of traffic at Rasmussen Park for 

work at UT3 would no longer occur. Therefore this project modification would result in a 

reduction in impacts to transportation.

 Land use and economics - A temporary construction easement at Louis Rasmussen Park 

is no longer required and there would be no short term impacts to recreational land uses 

at Louis Rasmussen Park.

 Visual resources and aesthetics - The proposed design would not result in the minor 

visual impact as described in the EA/FONSI. The eight (8)-foot culvert extension would 

occur in areas already evaluated in the EA/FONSI and would be consistent with 

anticipated construction activities and visual impacts already assessed in the EA/FONSI.

 Noise and vibration - Short term noise impacts to park users at Louis Rasmussen Park 

would be reduced because work would no longer occur within the park. This minor 

reduction in construction noise would not change the project’s overall noise impact 

described in the EA/FONSI.

 Ecosystems - Because a new fish passable culvert would not be constructed, the overall 

beneficial effect (increased fish passage, reduced flow, reduced water velocity, and 

reduced potential for flooding) associated with the culvert replacement would not occur 

at the UT3 location. (Note, however, that improvements benefiting protected fish species 

and habitat would occur as part of the Otter Creek Island Restoration Project, described 

below.) 

 Water resources - Because a new fish passable culvert would not be constructed, the 

overall beneficial effect (reduced flow, reduced water velocity, and reduced potential for 

flooding) associated with the culvert replacement would not occur. Short term impacts to 

hydrology and water quality (i.e. increased turbidity and potential spills and releases of 

pollutants) would be reduced for UT3 as only an extension of the existing culvert would 

occur. During construction, best management practices (BMPs) would minimize or avoid 

erosion, sedimentation, and pollutant spills to wetlands and water resources as committed 

to in the EA/FONSI.

 Geology and soils - Design modifications would alter the amount of soils disturbed but 

the change in quantities would not result in additional short or long terms impacts to 

geology and soils than already described in the EA/FONSI.

 Historic, cultural, and archeological resources - Excavation for culvert replacement at 

UT3 would no longer occur. Therefore, there is a reduced chance of encountering 

archaeological resources in undisturbed soils and an inadvertent discovery plan (IDP) 

would no longer be required for the UT3 site. This reduction in potential impacts to 

archaeological resources would not change the project’s overall impact to historic and 

archaeological resources described in the EA/FONSI. 
KMB Tasks 5&6 FONSI Addendum_Page 4

 Parklands and recreation - Because construction of the UT3 culvert replacement will no 

longer occur, a temporary construction easement at Louis Rasmussen Park is no longer 

required and there will be no short term park or beach closures, noise impacts, or 

vehicular traffic impacts. The project will no longer result in a “de minimis” use of Louis 

Rasmussen Park, a Section 4(f)-projected resource.

 Construction - The design modification at UT3 would eliminate impacts to the park and 

users of the park.

Otter Creek Island Restoration Project

Since FRA issued the FONSI in April 2015, WSDOT, WDFW, and the Cowlitz Indian Tribe 

recommended the Restoration Project as a new Task 5 Project element to provide the same 

improvements to fish habitat and fish passage proposed as the proposed culvert replacement at

UT3 but at a lower overall cost. The Restoration Project is located along the Cowlitz River near 

the City of Toledo between river mile (RM) 43.3 and 43.

The Restoration Project will include the construction of a primary perennial side channel through 

Otter Creek Island, construction of a secondary perennial side channel to connect to the existing 

Otter Creek side channel, excavation of a backwater area within the existing Otter Creek side 

channel, construction of three different types of engineered log jams, placement of additional 

habitat complexity logs, construction of a gravel augmentation/nourishment bar in the main stem 

of the Cowlitz River, and planting of native riparian vegetation. Work will be required below the 

ordinary high water mark of the Cowlitz River, Otter Creek, and the Otter Creek side channel. 

This work will include excavation and placement of native alluvium, impact driving of wooden 

piles, placement of large woody debris, and installation/removal of cofferdams, silt booms, and 

dewatering pumps.

The proposed Restoration Project will improve salmonid habitat throughout the Project area, 

adding much needed morphological complexity and restoring habitat-forming processes in a 

simplified reach of the Cowlitz River. The primary goal of the Restoration Project is to create 

perennial side channel habitat through Otter Creek Island and enhance fish habitat within the 

existing Otter Creek side channel. Secondary goals include the creation of off-channel and main 

stem complex wood cover and increasing sediment supply within the river to enhance spawning 

habitat.

FRA prepared a Biological Assessment for the Restoration Project in accordance with Section 7, 

and NMFS issued a BiOp on June 20, 2016. WSDOT will ensure that the following reasonable 

and prudent measures in the BiOp, as well as the corresponding terms and conditions, are 

implemented:
KMB Tasks 5&6 FONSI Addendum_Page 5

1. Monitor underwater noise while driving piles within the wetted channel.3

2. Minimize incidental take from elevated levels of turbidity resulting from

construction activities.

3. Minimize take while installing in-water isolation BMPs and streambed gravels.

The Restoration Project will result in impacts similar to those already described in the 

EA/FONSI including impacts to: transportation, visual resources and aesthetics, noise and 

vibration, ecosystems, historic/cultural/archeological resources, and tribal lands or interests.

These impacts are summarized below and will not result in significant impacts consistent with 

the EA/FONSI:

 Transportation - Delivery of construction materials would occur on rural roads with low 

average daily traffic counts. Less than 10 truck trips a day would occur during 

construction and are not anticipated to cause noticeable traffic delays. The transportation 

effects of constructing the Restoration Project would be less than that evaluated in the 

EA/FONSI.

 Visual resources and aesthetics - Construction of the Restoration Project would require 

the temporary installation of erosion and water control structures, grading, excavation to 

install the permanent log jams, and vegetative alterations required to provide long term 

habitat enhancements. The affected property is a natural, undeveloped setting. Fish 

enhancement activities are intended to create typical, mature riverine features (e.g. gravel 

bar, log jams, etc.) within the existing natural setting. As such, construction would result 

in a beneficial long term improvement to the overall aesthetics of the site.

 Noise and vibration - The minor, short-term noise and vibration impacts during 

construction of Restoration Project would be equal to or less than the intensity of noise 

and vibration analyzed in the EA/FONSI. Following construction, the affected property 

will remain in a natural, undeveloped state with no sources of man-made noise or 

vibration. The project location is further removed from recreational users and residential 

and commercial areas and therefore has less opportunity to impact people and structures.

 Ecosystems - Juvenile Lower Columbia River (LCR) coho salmon, LCR Chinook 

salmon, and LCR steelhead may be present during work activities at the site. Noise from 

pile driving activities, increased turbidity, and physical displacement during in-water 

 

3

In response to the June 30, 2016 BiOp, FRA explained in a letter to NMFS dated July 7, 2016, that the combination 

of pile driving in de-watered conditions and shallow water depth would make underwater sound transmission and 

monitoring of any transmission difficult and that the placement of monitoring hydrophones will be problematic in 

shallow water conditions. FRA also explained that it will not be possible to provide a noise monitoring plan to 

NMFS 30 days prior to the commencement of pile driving, due to the need to begin in-water work during the 

upcoming in-water work window that runs from July 15-September 15. In an email response dated July 11, 2016, 

NMFS indicated that they understand these limitations and, therefore, the 30-day notification before pile driving is 

not applicable and underwater noise must be monitored to the extent practicable where the water is deeper than 

three feet.
KMB Tasks 5&6 FONSI Addendum_Page 6

work would affect these species during construction. The activities are likely to adversely 

affect these species but would not destroy or adversely modify their designated critical 

habitats. Consultation with NMFS also included an assessment of Essential Fish Habitat 

(EFH). NMFS determined that construction activities would have an adverse effect on 

EFH designated for coho and Chinook salmon. Despite the construction period impacts, 

the Restoration Project will result in overall long-term beneficial effects to vegetation and 

wildlife, specifically ESA-listed fish species through enhancements to the habitat that 

supporting those species.

 Historic/cultural/archeological resources – WSDOT conducted a cultural resources 

survey in the spring of 2016. No architectural resources are present within the area of 

potential affect (APE) for the Restoration Project, and no archaeological resources were 

encountered during the survey. WSDOT, on behalf of FRA, conducted the necessary 

Section 106 consultation with DAHP; in a letter dated May 25, 2016 DAHP concurred 

that the Restoration Project would have no effect on historic properties. WSDOT will 

develop an IDP to be overseen by either a WSDOT or Cowlitz Indian Tribe archaeologist 

to establish procedures for addressing the unanticipated discovery of archaeological 

resources during construction activities. In addition, WSDOT sent copies of the cultural 

resources survey report to the Cowlitz Indian Tribe, the Yakama Nation, and the 

Nisqually Tribe for review and comment. Of these tribes, only the Nisqually Tribe 

replied, stating that it had no concerns.

 Tribal lands or interests - Changes made to the location of enhancement activities would 

not result in changes to tribal lands or interests. Through consultation among WSDOT, 

WDFW and the Cowlitz Indian Tribe, it has been determined that the Restoration Project 

would have an equal or greater beneficial impact to migratory fish of tribal interest than 

the original proposed improvements at UT3.

Rock Blasting

Controlled rock blast fracturing was not previously included as a construction method necessary 

to complete Task 5 and therefore was not evaluated in the EA/FONSI. Since FRA issued the 

FONSI in April 2015, BNSF Railway (BNSF), the infrastructure owner and contractor to 

WSDOT, conducted additional geotechnical investigations. These geotechnical investigations 

identified three locations of high density rock within the zone of excavation that may require 

rock drilling and/or controlled blast fracturing to facilitate removal for construction of the third 

mainline track and maintain safe train clearances for the new tracks. Controlled blasting at the 

three locations would occur during daylight hours and would generally entail the following 

sequence of activities and BMPs:

 Hydraulic drills would drill out the blast pattern designed by the blaster-in-charge. Drill 

depths and spacing would be based on the intended rock fracture and bench height.
KMB Tasks 5&6 FONSI Addendum_Page 7

 Insertion of the expansive grout or the minimum charge required to provide the most 

efficient rock fracture while minimizing blasting product used (determined by the field 

evaluation of rock density during drilling).

 Placement of blasting mats to avoid flying rock and minimize explosion acoustics.

 Clearing the area and issuing air horn warnings.

 Setting the controlled blast. The blaster-in-charge would then walk the area to ensure 

there are no undetonated explosives then call the “all clear” and open the area for rock 

removal.

 The rock produced from blasting would be used as clean, structural fill within the overall 

Task 5 Project.

Rock blasting will result in impacts similar to those already described in the EA/FONSI 

including impacts to: transportation, visual resources and aesthetics, noise and vibration, 

ecosystems, water resources, and construction. These impacts are summarized below and will 

not result in significant impacts consistent with the EA/FONSI:

 Transportation - Rock blasting would not result in new short-term or long-term impacts 

to vehicular or rail traffic as no temporary or long term detours or closures would occur. 

Construction materials for blasting would be delivered via rail and truck along existing 

routes as described in the EA/FONSI.

 Visual resources and aesthetics - The rock blasting activities would produce a finished 

slope visually equivalent to the original condition of the site and would result in a minor 

change in the visual impact. Rock blasting activities would not alter the overall visual 

impact of the project that is described in the EA/FONSI.

 Noise and vibration - Rock blasting would result in short-term, minor noise impacts 

during the construction period.

 Ecosystems - Rock blasting would not result in the removal of additional herbaceous 

vegetation. During construction, BMP’s would minimize or avoid erosion, sedimentation, 

and pollutant spills to wetlands and water resources as committed to in the EA/FONSI. 

WSDOT notified USFWS and NMFS about the rock blasting, and USFWS and NMFS 

concurred that rock blasting would not result in any new impacts compared to those 

described in the BiOp for the project. 

 Water resources - Rock blasting could result in short-term impacts to hydrology and 

water quality (i.e. increased turbidity and potential spills and releases of pollutants).

 Construction - Rock blasting is an additional construction method and would result in 

additional short-term impacts such as noise disturbance, and erosion and sedimentation. 

During construction, BMP’s would minimize or avoid erosion, sedimentation, and 

pollutant spills to wetlands and water resources. Additional BMP’s would be utilized to 

eliminate potential safety hazards to workers and the public.

Preservation Property
KMB Tasks 5&6 FONSI Addendum_Page 8

During the identification of mitigation measures to support the EA, the US Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE), Cowlitz Indian Tribe, and WDFW identified a preservation property that 

would replace the habitat functions lost through the placement of fill in Owl Creek. Following 

the EA/FONSI, BNSF entered into negotiations to acquire that preservation property. In May 

2015, the property owner informed all parties that the property was no longer available for 

acquisition.

Consistent with the EA/FONSI, WSDOT and BNSF will acquire a new property roughly 50 

acres of high-value wetlands in the vicinity of Owl Creek and the confluence of the Cowlitz 

River and Columbia River. The size and specific location of replacement properties may change, 

and WSDOT will rely on the following parameters agreed to by USACE, the Cowlitz Indian 

Tribe, and WDFW:

 Target those functions lost with the fill of Owl Creek channel habitat, and specifically 

target rearing habitat for coho and steelhead runs within the Columbia River basin.

 Occur within Water Resource Inventory Areas 24 (Columbia River Basin only), 25, 26, 

or 27.

 Provide:

o Priority, high value aquatic habitats identified by WDFW and the Cowlitz Indian 

Tribe within the Columbia River Estuary (i.e., from the Bonneville Dam to the 

mouth of the Columbia River);

o Maximized opportunities for wetland or off‐channel restoration and floodplain 

connectivity by local, state, tribal, or federal agencies; and/or

o Suitable habitat for multiple threatened or endangered species.

The change in location of the Preservation Property will not result in a change or new impacts 

that differ from those described in the EA/FONSI and would not result in significant impacts.

PROJECT COMMITMENTS

As the project sponsor, WSDOT is responsible for ensuring all environmental commitments 

identified in Appendix B of the April 2015 FONSI, the reasonable and prudent measures in the 

BiOp for the Otter Creek Island Restoration Project, and the BMPs described in this FONSI are 

fully implemented. 

FINDING

FRA finds that the proposed Project changes described above for the Kelso-Martin’s Bluff Task 

5 and Task 6 Improvement Projects will not result in any foreseeable significant impacts on the 

quality of the human or natural environment after implementation of the mitigation described in 

the EA/FONSI and above. FRA also finds that the EA/FONSI, prepared pursuant to FRA’s 

NEPA “Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts” (64 FR 28545, May 26, 1999) and